Versions of internalism have played important roles in metaethics, for example, in defending irrealist options such as emotivism. However, internalism is itself as controversial as the views it is used to defend. Standard approaches to testing the view, such as thought experiments about amoralists, have failed to gain consensus. Michael Huemer offers a defense of internalism of a different kind which he calls the “argument from interpretation.” He presents the argument as one Humeans could embrace, but versions could be accepted by others, including Huemer himself. The argument begins from the assumption that a certain principle of charity is true and knowable a priori. But it can only be known a priori if internalism is true. Hence internalism is true. In this paper I argue that this important argument fails. My main objection makes use of recent work in empirical psychology. Huemer needs the principle of charity to be known a priori. I argue that rather than being an a priori issue, it is an empirical one and that the empirical evidence is strong enough to undermine his argument for internalism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
As a reviewer for Philosophia pointed out, it might be that one can know a priori that one is conscious without being able to know a priori all the necessary conditions for consciousness.
Philosophers have long been acquainted with such distinctions through the work of R. M Hare (1981).
For a discussion of some research on the role of first impressions specifically in politics, see Christopher Olivola and Alexander Todorov (2010).
Brink, D. (1989). Moral realism and the foundations of ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dennett, D. (2007). Breaking the spell. London: Penguin.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (1985). The social brain. New York: Basic Books.
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Moral intuition = Fast and frugal heuristics? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology volume 2, the cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
Hare, R. M. (1963). Freedom and reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, methods and point. Oxford: Clarendon.
Harman, G. (1975). Moral relativism defended. The Philosophical Review, 84(1), 3–22.
Henderson, D. (1987). The principle of charity and the problem of irrationality. Synthese, 73, 225–252.
Huemer, M. (2005). Ethical intuitionism. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast, thinking slow. New York: Narrar, Straus and Giroux.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Olivola, C., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 83–110.
Prinz, J. (2007). The emotional construction of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stevenson, C. (1937). The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind, 46, 14–31.
Stevenson, C. (1963). The nature of ethical disagreement. In Facts and values (pp. 1–9). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Stich, S. (1985). Could man be an irrational animal? Some notes on the epistemology of rationality. Synthese, 64(1), 115–135.
Thagard, P., & Nisbett, R. (1983). Rationality and charity. Philosophy of Science, 50(2), 250–267.
Warren, M. A. (1973). On the moral and legal status of abortion. The Monist, 57, 43–61.
Webster, J. M., Kaushik, G. B., & McConkey, G. (2013). Toxoplasma gondii infection, from predation to schizophrenia: can animal behavior help us understand human behaviour. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 99–122.
Zimmer, C. (2014). Parasites practicing mind control. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/science/parasites-practicing-mind-control.html. Accessed 3 Dec 2014.
About this article
Cite this article
Levy, S. Michael Huemer’s A Priori Defense of Metaethical Internalism. Philosophia 43, 1067–1080 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-015-9610-x
- Principle of charity